The practice of merely marking them but not exhibiting them in evidence and looking for proof by examination of a chemist is quite a needless exercise. The Tribunals must be more pragmatic in their approach while dealing with the cases for motor accident victims and invoke the power which is vested in them under Sections 168 and 169 in such a fashion that they do not shackle themselves by unrealistic procedures to meet the ends of justice/Unless the bills seem fabricated or there is something very peculiar elicited at the trial to doubt genuineness of the bills, the Tribunal dealing with the motor accident cases ought not to be looking for evidence through a chemist who had issued the bills. The production of the bills relating to the purchase of medicines during the period of hospitalization and oral evidence given by the party about purchasing of medicines ought to be taken as sufficient proof of authentication and admissibility of these documents. {Para 2}
3. Similarly, the practice of summoning doctors even for merely marking the MLR reports must be stopped. It must be remembered that the procedure under the M.V. Act is summary in character and documents which are maintained in the Government hospitals in the regular course of business require no more proof and a mere copy produced at the trial shall be received as public documents satisfying the requirements under Section 76 of the Indian Evidence Act. The summoning of the documents from lawful custody or copy of the document duly authenticated by the seal of the hospital which has issued the MLR must themselves be taken as sufficient proof for the same and the procedures that go to prolong the proceedings or delay them must be immediately curtailed by the Tribunals.
4. Even as regards the examination of doctors, it should be confined only to securing appropriate proof of disability and in special circumstances where there is a prolonged treatment or a requirement for a continuous treatment even beyond the period of trial, the attempt of the Tribunal must be to elicit from the doctors the prognosis for cure and the likely expenses that may have to be incurred in future. With a view to devise a procedure adopted in the manner of assigning dates for doctors and the need to save time for professionals like doctors, they must stay confined to what are most essential features to assist the Court to understand the nature of injuries and assess disability, if any to the claimant. They shall not be merely called to Courts for exhibiting some documents like MLR, period of treatment, etc. A hospital document produced by a party which is duly authenticated must be taken as sufficient as proof of the documents themselves and the requirement to produce the doctor for mere production of hospital documents must be immediately given up.
5. Some directions as regards the procedure become necessary only because it is a recurrent theme in our Tribunals that they reject the medical bills or keep out of reckoning the hospital records only because either the chemist is not examined or the doctor is not before the Court to speak about the hospital records. The presence of doctors or the chemists must be confined only to extraordinary situations where the documents themselves are seriously in doubt.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
F.A.O. No. 12 of 1994 (O&M)
Decided On: 09.02.2012
Parsanni Vs. Sube Singh and Ors.
Hon'ble Judges/Coram:
K. Kannan, J.
